India confirms the purchase of 36 Rafale in fly-away conditions

#1
Pdt Modi has announced the purchase of 36 Rafale in fly-away condition during a joint press conference with Pdt Hollande in Paris. That's if the translator got everything right, of course.

More to follow I presume.....

Now confirmed by Le Monde:

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/arti...e-chasse-rafale-a-la-france_4614097_3234.html

and the Indian press:

PM Narendra Modi in Paris - LIVE: Rafale deal struck, France to invest 2 billion Euros in India

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india...-invest-2-billion-euros-in-india_1576731.html
 
Last edited:
#3
Good for them. its a good aircraft, and fits Indians needs better than EF would right now.
 
#4

Even better !

Spare a thought for the poor Jane's IHS editors who had to change the mandatory sentence on Rafale "which has yet to secure a single customer" twice in as many months...

:smile:

Not to mention the Indian Navy's interest in the Rafale M last month....

Dassault Aviation chief executive officer Eric Trappier announced yesterday during a press conference that the French company has replied to a request for information from the Indian Navy on the naval Rafale M single-seat carrier-capable variant of its fighter.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...out-the-rafale-m-carrier-capable-variant.html
 
#6
The most important bit, IMHO. The deal clincher?
There was definitely an air of urgency within the IAF; the fact the Euros exchange rate got recently more favorable for the Indians probably helped.

Anyway, 24 Rafale for Egypt + 36 for India = 60 Rafale, the exact number needed to balance the FRA MoD budget.
 
#7
Fantassin,

Any word on the remainder of the original order? I assume that India won't accept all of the aircraft in this state?

Regards,
MM
 
#8
The apparent cancellation/cessation of negotiation on the Russian T-50 by India may well have been as a result of a decision to go ahead with Rafale.

The T-50 had been running into various problems, including their lack of an adequate powerplant.
 
#10
Thanks Fantassin.

It's obviously early days but Indian press coverage appears to be conflicting. Some are suggesting that the original deal for 126 (which included 18 delivered in fly-away state) has been scrapped in favour of this much smaller purchase. However, there appears to be an option for further purchases although any license production would presumably entail the same quality control issues.

Rafale M would certainly be a better bet for the IN than the MiG-29K given that the US aren't about to allow India to get their hands on the FA-18E/F.

Regards,
MM
 
#12
France or India?:)

Regards,
MM
 
#13
Several defence specialists have already pointed out that the US reaction to past Indian nuclear testing meant that India was not going to purchase US made fighters that could suffer from a US embargo.

In short, US airlifters and MPRAs yes, fighters no.

And the IAF has not forgotten it won the Karghil thanks to its Mirage 2000s...
 
#14
I suspect that US security concerns will ensure they won't be offering combat assets in the near future anyway.;)

Regards,
MM
 
#15
So in a nutshell....

France is broke and is committed to buying planes it can't afford to keep Dassault afloat and needs to plug a huge black hole in its defence budget.

India knows France is desperate and plays hardball......

France now so desperate to plug its defence funding black hole in the short term, it starts touting around planes earmarked for the FAF at fire sale prices.

India says 'thank you very much' as it reams France for 36 jets in flyaway condition and hints it may buy more, depending on how much it can screw France down on the price for further jets and trade agreements.

the Élysée sticks a band aid on its bankrupt budget, the French Air Force shrinks, Dassault staggers on, and the Indians laugh all the way to the bank.
 
#16
But they maintain the capability to design and produce good aircraft, with all the technical skills that entails. In that I suspect the French play a long term game and are prepared to pay the price to keep it going.
 
#17
But they maintain the capability to design and produce good aircraft, with all the technical skills that entails. In that I suspect the French play a long term game and are prepared to pay the price to keep it going.
This is the problem at home if a Trident-killing party holds sway next month (ahem, SNP) - it will almost certainly see the demise of Barrow-in-Furness and the loss of any sort of sub' design and building skills in this country.

In that respect why can't we be more like the French insofar as you have indicated (and I never thought I'd hear myself saying that!)?!
 
Last edited:
#18
This is the problem at home if a Trident-killing party holds sway next month (ahem, SNP) - it will almost certainly see the demise of Barrow-in-Furness and the loss of any sort of sub-design and building skills in this country.

In that respect why can't we be more like the French insofar as you have indicated (and I never thought I'd hear myself saying that!)?!

The SNP et all are talking balls and they know it. No new bombers, we are all out of the submarine game of any complexion completely and also step smartly away from the political top table.

Even Milipede and Sturgeon will not do anything to go from front door and top table to the tradesmans entrance of diplomacy with Washington.
 
#19
If the SNP don't want Trident on their doorstep I for one am quite happy to see them based in Plymouth or Portsmouth - both not a particularly long way from my house (but not as close as BFO nuclear power station). I'm also perfectly happy to see all the attendant jobs move to my area, too, where they are sorely needed.

Sturgeon and her chippy, bitter, racist mates need to understand that all their houses will still be in range, though.

However, we are digressing...
 
#20
The SNP et all are talking balls and they know it. No new bombers, we are all out of the submarine game of any complexion completely and also step smartly away from the political top table.
Providing somebody is sensible if Trident goes Successor will be replaced by a new attack boat (4 of ). Although that means defence retains a small proportion of the Trident part of the budget before the rest of its spunked up the wall.

Why the insistence (not just you) that the UK would have to step down from the security council if it gives up nukes.

The only country in the council that had nukes before they joined is the US, as such nuclear power is irrelevant.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top